Gay Marriage

[Uncle Festivus]

How do homosexual & lesbian couples explain the birds & the bees to their children?

What is their answer to 'Where do I come from'?

Can we have our rainbow colours back?

 

[explod]

I'll just reply to myself here... and it looks like Derren has changed his mind on homosexuality.

[edit]....or has he?.....sorry about that!

Read here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mos...wn-longer-wants-control-mind--improve-it.html

Sorry I missed that earlier. You are correct in my view.

As in the religeon thread, the problem of under/or/missunderstanding here, is the tension between belief and science. One assums the gap can be meshed together for a consensus, but I am afraid it seems to be like trying to square a circle, it wont' go.

 

[Julia]

This thread is not about peodophiles, deviants or children.

Not quite true, explod, when you consider the law just passed in NZ gives these couples the right to adopt children, so it's not unreasonable for the discussion to include relationship of sexual orientation to the process of raising children.

The question is, should they be allowed to be married. I know a male couple who have been together for nearly 30 years, they run a business and one is also a minister of a religeon who still conducts services.

Such couples do no harm to anybody and are in fact generous and the first to help anyone in trouble, as a couple together too.

Fine. But their kindness and generosity probably has nothing to do with their sexual orientation. I understand the point you're trying to make, however.

Marriage brings with it security in later years and the benefits of the state.

It makes no difference. Civil unions already confer all the same financial and social security benefits as marriage.

A married couple or couple together recieve overall less in Government benefits than does the combined amount of two singles.

So we could regard homosexual marriage as a positive budgetary measure.

If by allowing them to marry we will have happier people which is a benefit to everyone.

A naive assumption here, explod. I'm sure every couple who is disposed to get married does so in the belief that it will bring them endless happiness. Looking at the divorce stats, it obviously doesn't. No reason to imagine that homosexuals who marry will be any happier than any other couple, is there?

And of course the sanctity of a good marriage is the ideal for having children but it has never guaranteed their protection and could be argued that under the cover of a marriage a peadophile being one of the partners have been shown to get away with it till the children have often sufferred all the way to later adulthood when sometimes the perpetrator has passed on. How about the Father in England who had his Daughter locked up in a cellar for many years and had three children to her. He was married and his wife must have known. These are very very much more important issues but not part of this debate.

Agree. There are simply no guarantees that any person or persons raising a child will do so well, whatever their circumstances and/or sexual preference.

I have friends who are a gay couple. They made the choice to have children by surrogacy at a very considerable cost. If you met the children out playing I doubt you'd even have the merest hint that they were being raised by a gay couple. They laugh and cry just as much as any other children. The oldest boy has a cheeky streak to him, while the younger ones are still in that shy phase till they get to know you.

This couple has made major changes in their lives to have the children. They invested considerable resources into designing their house so they can work from home and have a lot more time with their children. They had to make a CHOICE, unlike a lot of parents out there who you often wonder if they really want the children they have.

Definitely. Fortunately, the latter are a minority, many of whom have just passively fallen into parenthood through simple thoughtlessness. Hardly the greatest basis for a good outcome.

 

[McLovin]

Can you clarify what you're saying here? Are you suggesting paedophilia is a choice or a biological compulsion, just the same as homosexuality?

I'm saying that paedophilia is not a sexual orientation, anymore than wanting to have sex with dead bodies or horses is.

Per wiki (yes I know not the most reliable source)...

Sexual orientation is an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender. These attractions are generally subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality,[1][2] while asexuality (the lack of romantic or sexual attraction to others) is sometimes identified as the fourth category

So you can basically be one of four types. Wanting to sexually assault children is not a sexual orientation anymore than a rapist could claim assaulting adult women is a sexual orientation. It's sad that these debates seem to always drag paedophilia and animals into them.

 

[McLovin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Children.E2.80.99s_outcomes

I know the above is from Wikipedia, and no doubt those that have contrary views could find articles supporting their beliefs, but the above - especially the part I've bolded - sums up my views better than I could articulate myself.

If it is not right to deny a child the right to know its biological parents - should all adoptions be frowned upon, or only those made by same-sex couples?

There was a time when it was quite normal for daughters to marry whoever their fathers told them to, with little or no importance placed on their preference.

There was a time when it was generally accepted that only a man had the right to own property, and only men could earn money, hold jobs, be members of parliament etc.

There was a time when white people felt they had the right to sell other humans of a different colour as slaves.

There was a time when only men could vote, and many considered the very thought of this changing to be outrageous.

There was a time, not that long ago, that our own Australian aboriginal population were considered good enough to go to war for the country, but not good enough to vote or to be left to raise their own children.

There was a time when inter-racial relationships were considered to be scandalous.

There was a time when equal pay for women for the same job was extremely rare, and women had to resign upon marriage.

I firmly believe that one day our children and grandchildren will look back at this present debate and wonder "how could they think that was right", as I wonder how people in the past ever thought the above "norms" were right or acceptable.

Society evolves. Some wish to cling to the old ways, and they are just as entitled to their beliefs and opinions as anyone else, but in the end the beliefs of the majority will prevail - it's just a matter of time. Personally, I think it is wrong to deny a (growing) section of our community the same rights and privileges that fall to the rest of us.

Great post DocK.

I'm sure back when whites and blacks were first being allowed to date and marry many of the same arguments were made.

 

[McLovin]

No, but it would be interesting to know why gay supporters of same sex "marriage" on this thread are averse to declaring their sexual orientation. Whatever happened to "gay pride"?

I'm not averse to it, no one asked. Not that I think it's anyone's business, but I'm not gay. I don't see why one needs to be gay to support gay marriage anymore than one needs to be black to have supported the civil rights movement.

 

[Calliope]

I'm not averse to it, no one asked. Not that I think it's anyone's business, but I'm not gay. I don't see why one needs to be gay to support gay marriage anymore than one needs to be black to have supported the civil rights movement.

Great post McLovin.

 

[Calliope]

It is ironic that while in the straight population the tendency towards marriage is decreasing, the institution of marriage is becoming more attractive to gays and their supporters. Perhaps we will see the day when the majority of marriages are same sex.

In 2009-10, 11% (1.9 million) of Australians aged 18 years and over were living in a de facto relationship, while 53% were in a registered marriage. De facto relationships were most common amongst younger people, with one fifth (22%) of people aged 20-29 years living in these relationships, compared with nearly one tenth (9.4%) of people aged 40-49 years. The proportion of people aged 20-29 years living in a de facto relationship has doubled since 1992, where one tenth (10%) were living in one of these relationships. The rate for people aged 40-49 years has also nearly doubled (up from 4.7%) during this time.

De facto relationships include those living in a same-sex relationship and in 2009-10 there were around 46,300 people living in a same sex couple. The majority of these couples had no children

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features30March+Quarter+2012

 

[bellenuit]

You have made statements that want to denigrate marriage.

Sorry, that should have read:

You have made statements that they want to denigrate marriage.

 

[Calliope]

Sorry, that should have read:

You have made statements that they want to denigrate marriage.

Did I say that? Well, whether or not I had the foresight to predict that outcome, it seems to be coming to pass. See my previous post. While gays and their supporters are keen for them to take the marriage vows, it's popularity among straights is declining.

 

[bellenuit]

Did I say that? Well, whether or not I had the foresight to predict that outcome, it seems to be coming to pass. See my previous post. While gays and their supporters are keen for them to take the marriage vows, it's popularity among straights is declining.

Are you saying marriage is declining because gays have denigrated the institution of marriage? I would attribute the decline to lots of other factors, such as (for Western societies):

1. Women becoming more affluent and independent, so no longer seek the "security" in marriage.
2. No longer a stigma to having children out of wedlock, so there is no pressure to marry to "legitimise" the child
3. The decline in religion means that younger people no longer see it as a "sin" to have sexual relations outside marriage, so less of a need to marry to be able to enjoy an active sexual relationship.
4. The pressures of modern society make it harder for couples to make marriage work, so it doesn't have the same positive connotations as previously. The trauma of divorce and the increased likelihood of divorce happening make many young people think the whole exercise is just not worth it.

I can't see how you could attribute the cause to gay marriages when they are not yet legalised and even the call to allow gay marriages has only become widespread in the last few years. The figures you posted are changes over a decade ending in 2009/2010, a decade when the concept of gay marriage was not even on the mainstream agenda but the above factors I listed were to the fore.

 

[Calliope]

Are you saying marriage is declining because gays have denigrated the institution of marriage? I would attribute the decline to lots of other factors, such as (for Western societies):

1. Women becoming more affluent and independent, so no longer seek the "security" in marriage.
2. No longer a stigma to having children out of wedlock, so there is no pressure to marry to "legitimise" the child
3. The decline in religion means that younger people no longer see it as a "sin" to have sexual relations outside marriage, so less of a need to marry to be able to enjoy an active sexual relationship.
4. The pressures of modern society make it harder for couples to make marriage work, so it doesn't have the same positive connotations as previously. The trauma of divorce and the increased likelihood of divorce happening make many young people think the whole exercise is just not worth it.

I can't see how you could attribute the cause to gay marriages when they are not yet legalised and even the call to allow gay marriages has only become widespread in the last few years. The figures you posted are changes over a decade ending in 2009/2010, a decade when the concept of gay marriage was not even on the mainstream agenda but the above factors I listed were to the fore.

Great post bellenuit.

 

[Julia]

I'm saying that paedophilia is not a sexual orientation, anymore than wanting to have sex with dead bodies or horses is.

Per wiki (yes I know not the most reliable source)...

Sexual orientation is an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender. These attractions are generally subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality,[1][2] while asexuality (the lack of romantic or sexual attraction to others) is sometimes identified as the fourth category

If Wiki had been around fifty or more years ago, I doubt it would have offered a similar definition.
Homosexuality would still have been regarded as 'abnormal', 'something to be cured' etc.
(I'm not suggesting that's correct at all, but just pointing out how social mores change over time.)

So you can basically be one of four types. Wanting to sexually assault children is not a sexual orientation anymore than a rapist could claim assaulting adult women is a sexual orientation. It's sad that these debates seem to always drag paedophilia and animals into them.

No, it's not sad. It's a reasonable extension of the discussion.
So, just to be quite clear, you are saying that an adult feeling a desire for sexual contact with children has absolute choice in the matter, that it is not at all like one man or woman feeling desire for sex with their same gender?
I don't know. But I think to assume we understand what drives paedophiles is wrong. How do you know they do not abhor the aberrant drive they feel and fight just as hard to overcome it as once did homosexuals?

The above should not at all be interpreted as tolerance for the sexual assault of children under any circumstances.

 

[drsmith]

If I've commented on this topic in the past, my views haven't changed.

 

[bellenuit]

How do you know they do not abhor the aberrant drive they feel and fight just as hard to overcome it as once did homosexuals?

I would say that pedophilia is likely a biological condition outside the control of many pedophiles. It is not uncommon to hear of pedophiles asking for chemical castration because they know they cannot control their urges and will offend again. Apart from some who might get some perverse kick out of "playing" with children, why would anyone chose to obtain sexual gratification that way considering the grave consequence of being ostracised from society if caught.

I think heterosexuals, homosexuals, pedophiles and people with other sexual orientations are predominantly the way they are because of their biology. There is nothing any of us can do to change the biology of ourselves or others (though that may soon not be the case). But acting according to the dictates of our biology can be benign to society for some orientations and harmful for others. It is unfortunate for those who fall into the later category that they will not be able to achieve sexual fulfilment by submitting to their urges without also offending society's rules. But that is the way the dice falls. We are all dealt different hands, not just in relation to sexual orientation, but other physical attributes as well as mental capabilities. Some of these will result in individuals who have tendencies to do things that can harm society and society protects itself by forbidding those activities. Other tendencies will be seen as beneficial and encouraged.

I think in the case of homosexuality it has gone from being seen as detrimental to society to being benign. It was seen as a deviation from the norm before, rather than just another normal. It was misunderstood as being a lifestyle choice that could be opted into or out of at a whim. It was the church which demonised homosexuality, for two main reasons. Badly interpreted scripts from the bible, a book which is irrelevant as a moral code in any case, and also it being seen by its very nature to go against the dictate "increase and multiply".

However, homosexuality is now being seen as just another "normal". A homosexual relationship poses no threats to society and is beneficial when it means that those who have that orientation can have sexual fulfilment just like the other "normal". Sam Harris defined as "morally good" things that increase the overall happiness and wellness of society. Gay marriage is just another step in allowing homosexuals to be happier people. It doesn't guarantee them happiness, but the opportunity should not be denied to them.

 

[Tink]

Thats right bellenuit, they are all the same, homosexuality and pedophilia, and it has nothing to do with the Church.
This entitlement mentality is the ruin for all, especially the children. Anyone that says they are not the same are being naive.Time to let them all out of the closet then if we are allowing one?
There are lots of articles on the internet stating just that as recent as last month if people want to do some research.

At least there was a standard for children that marraige was about raising families, having children, loving your mum and dad, knowing your roots, the list goes on.
Now they want it just about sex - no meaning to the word at all.

At least try and keep something sacred for our children.

I couldnt care less about the adults - selfish is how I see them. No thought for the children or the future generations..
Yes, I see it as destroying the concept of marraige.

My view is alot of the children will be run by the state, it will become their responsibility.

My opinion

 

[Sean K]

If I've commented on this topic in the past, my views haven't changed.

Nice to see you doctor!

 

[stewiejp]

Thats right bellenuit, they are all the same, homosexuality and pedophilia, and it has nothing to do with the Church.

Pretty strong statement to make there Tink. I respect your right to an opinion but you'd have to be very brave to say that in person to someone with opposing views. I've never seen a link between homosexuality and paedophilia myself, either in person or in print.

Society has evolved. Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. Now, it is more accepted than it was 10, 50, 100 or 1000 years ago.

 

[sydboy007]

Thats right bellenuit, they are all the same, homosexuality and pedophilia, and it has nothing to do with the Church.
This entitlement mentality is the ruin for all, especially the children. Anyone that says they are not the same are being naive.Time to let them all out of the closet then if we are allowing one?
There are lots of articles on the internet stating just that as recent as last month if people want to do some research.

At least there was a standard for children that marraige was about raising families, having children, loving your mum and dad, knowing your roots, the list goes on.
Now they want it just about sex - no meaning to the word at all.

At least try and keep something sacred for our children.

I couldnt care less about the adults - selfish is how I see them. No thought for the children or the future generations..
Yes, I see it as destroying the concept of marraige.

My view is alot of the children will be run by the state, it will become their responsibility.

My opinion

Tink

my opinion is your a biggot. To say a person who is homosexual is the same as a pedophile. On what basis do you make this statement?

Just to update your dark age views, most child sex abuse is done by family members or friends / relatives. A very small minority of cases is actually done by a total stranger.

As for keeping something sacred for the children, do you have any evidence to show that children brough up by homosexual parents are in any way harmed by this?

Might i say that being brought up with heterosexual parents can cause long term harm. One has to wonder what the parents of Hitler or Musolini did wrong eh. Think of general Togo and the atrocities he committed.

You're welcome to your opinion, but you're turning into a small minority. I'd say 150 years ago you'd have thought it was unnatural for inter racial relationships, maybe even enjoying have a slave or two as domestic help.

Love is...well love. If you are blinded to this, then maybe you need to look inside to find out what causes your fear and hatred.

There's a lot of reasons why children grow up mal adjusted or "broken", but I've yet to hear of being raised by a loving pair of homosexual parents as being one of them.

 

[DocK]

Thats right bellenuit, they are all the same, homosexuality and pedophilia, and it has nothing to do with the Church.
This entitlement mentality is the ruin for all, especially the children. Anyone that says they are not the same are being naive.Time to let them all out of the closet then if we are allowing one?
There are lots of articles on the internet stating just that as recent as last month if people want to do some research.

At least there was a standard for children that marraige was about raising families, having children, loving your mum and dad, knowing your roots, the list goes on.
Now they want it just about sex - no meaning to the word at all.

At least try and keep something sacred for our children.

I couldnt care less about the adults - selfish is how I see them. No thought for the children or the future generations..
Yes, I see it as destroying the concept of marraige.

My view is alot of the children will be run by the state, it will become their responsibility.

My opinion

You obviously have some strong views on the subject Tink. I'm interested in whether you are able to provide any links or research to back up the statements I've bolded? I'm inclined to believe your views are strongly influenced by your religious beliefs and the dictates of your faith, rather than being based on scientific fact or anecdotal research - and if you don't mind confirming or dismissing my assumptions I'd appreciate it. I personally tend to think that the anti-gay marriage section of our community tends to be mostly over 40, and consists of people likely to hold their views based on either religious beliefs or a general dislike/distaste for homosexuality in general. Both perfectly legitimate reasons, but ones I think are likely to decrease with time rather than predominate. I have also assumed that if gay marriage becomes legal at some point that individual religions opposed to it will retain their rights to only marry those they wish to in their own churches - just as I assume they now have the right to refuse to marry any couple of a different faith or they disapprove of?

I disagree that the main purpose of marriage is for raising families. There are many couples who marry with no intention of having children, or are past child-bearing age at the time of their marriage.

I also think all this talk of whether homosexuality is biological or not, and the suggestion that as paedophilia may also be biological in nature is an argument often used to muddy the waters. As is the polygamy question. The question being debated in the community and on this thread is whether two consenting adults who are doing nothing to harm society should be allowed to be legally married. I cannot see how homosexuality and paedophilia can rationally be compared - whether they be a lifestyle choice, a biologic compulsion or a result of environmental factors. Marriage rights for gays has nothing to do with paedophiles, polygamists, cults, animal/corpse lovers or any other group - and the introduction of this very, very small % of the population (as compared to hetero and homosexuals) is a ruse often used to somehow taint the debate. I also actually think that whether same sex couples should be allowed to marry, and whether they should be allowed to adopt children are two separate questions and should not be automatically linked. There are many same sex couples who have no desire to have children, but would like to be married, just as there are many who are already able to adopt children or employ surrogates or use ivf etc to have children, without necessarily being married or wishing to.